MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2316499997 · doi:10.1097/00013614-200610000-00005

Family and Staff Perceptions of the Impact of the Long-term Care Environment on Leisure

2006· article· en· W2316499997 sur OpenAlexaff
Kristen C. MacDonald

Notice bibliographique

RevueTopics in Geriatric Rehabilitation · 2006
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineSocial Sciences
ThématiqueMigration, Aging, and Tourism Studies
Établissements canadiensDalhousie University
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésPerceptionMedicineTerm (time)Leisure timeGerontologyNursingPsychologyPhysical activityPhysical therapy

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Alzheimer's disease is a debilitating disease affecting the brain, including emotions, judgment, information processing, memory, and the ability to learn. As the disease progresses, simple activities of daily living become more and more difficult. Alzheimer's disease is one of the most common reasons for institutionalization among older adults. The transition from a home to a long-term care facility has the potential to decrease functioning ability; however, leisure activities are an aspect of resident care that is used to promote an enhanced quality of life. The purpose of this study was to investigate how the institutional environment impacts leisure opportunities and choices of individuals with Alzheimer's disease in a long-term care facility, from the perspectives of staff members and family caregivers. Self-contained focus groups were utilized for this study. This type of focus group provides very rich data that can be useful without reliance on other methods. This study used a semistructured approach for conducting focus groups and the interview guides contained broad questions that attempted to elicit information about the impacts of the environment on leisure. The questions focused on physical, social, and psychological influences in the environment that impacted on leisure involvement. Thirteen individuals who met the predetermined criteria were contacted to participate in the research study. Ten individuals participated in the study: 5 family caregivers and 5 staff members. The following themes represented the issues that were relevant to leisure involvement from the perspective of the family members: Lack of staff, family involvement, concerns for well-being of loved one, physical environment, and opportunity for leisure was limited. The following themes represented the staff members' voices from this study: Staff-related issues, environmental issues, discrimination of individuals with Alzheimer's disease, and lack of family support and education. The findings in this study were examined from an ecological perspective in which the long-term care environment was categorized into the microsystem, mesosystem, exosystem, and macrosystem. Most of the findings related to the microsystem and mesosystem, or the immediate environment, which can be somewhat controlled by the participants. Although there were learnings at other layers, such as the macrosystem and exosystem, individuals in this study had little control over these layers of the environment, but collectively they may be able to initiate wider changes. The learnings that emerged from this study could potentially improve the long-term care environment, which addressed some of the issues identified by the participants. Increasing communication through the collaboration of staff members and family caregivers at the facility was an important learning that addressed some of the issues identified by participants. Family caregivers voiced concerns about the staff members not being knowledgeable about their loved one's past, or taking time to find out what the individual was interested in. Communication among all parties involved will be very beneficial to aid in enhancing the microsystem, where most of the issues developed, to make the environment more conducive to leisure. The therapeutic recreation professional should provide leisure education to staff and family members, as well as provide tools and resources to both family and staff members to assist in enhancing involvement in leisure in residents with Alzheimer's disease.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,000
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: Observationnel
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,123
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,993

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,006
Tête enseignante GPT0,273
Écart entre enseignants0,266 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeObservationnel
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations12
Publié2006
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueTopics in Geriatric RehabilitationMême sujetMigration, Aging, and Tourism StudiesTravaux en français237 207